Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:21:50 +1000 From: green@filitov.isf.rl.af.mil (Charles Green) To: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD and Mach 64 Message-ID: <199608011621.MAA24184@filitov.isf.rl.af.mil> In-Reply-To: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> "Re: FreeBSD and Mach 64" (Aug 1, 11:53)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Vanderhoek stands accused of saying: } Date: Aug 1, 11:53 } Subject: Re: FreeBSD and Mach 64 } On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Charles Kenneth Green - PRC wrote: } } [cc: list trimmed] } } > Has there been a fix for the sio.c bug that fouls up Mach 64 } > cards. I have a FreeBSD 2.1 system that I had to replace the video card } > in. The card I ended up getting uses a Mach 64 chip and I'd prefer not to } > have to send it back. } } Sort of. The sio driver no longer probes com3 (or whichever one it was) } by default. The only bug that really existed was that the sio driver } probed every comport even if it was only supposed to check one. } } I'm using a Mach64 here, and it works great (although you may need to get } a beta X server from the ftp.xfree86.org if it uses one of those `CT' or } `VT' (I think it's `VT' -- don't quote me) chips). } That would be exceptable, I already have the Beta-E, I needed it for a diamond card I'm using on another system. } } -- } Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! } tIM...HOEk } }-- End of excerpt from Tim Vanderhoek -- Charles Green, PRC, Inc. Rome Laboratory, NY
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608011621.MAA24184>